FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers, the governor, local disaster/emergency mangement officials begged the goverment for help. It's not like it was just this random guy who said "hey you should do this." It was clear foresight. They saw it coming and issued tons of warnings. This is not a 'hindsight is 20/20' situation.

when you have two differing opinions on the best way to protect the city and one, after the worst case scenario occurs, is right, you have a hindsight is 20/20 situation.

So that's it? If everyone is shouting at the government "you've got to do this before it's too late!," the government ignores it, then the disaster occurs and proves them right, are you just going to shrug and say "well, hindsight's 20/20"?

There is a very real point to this. It was fairly obvious what needed to be done - so obvious that the government had been working on it for a decade - and then the current president made an enormous mistake that likely cost billions of dollars and many lives. You don't just say, well that sucks but hey you can't blame the guy, he didn't know. He did know, and we should hold him accountable for his mistake.

PresClay_00

can you guarantee with 100% accuracy that none of this would have happened had the funding remained the same? hell, they could have been clamoring for more money instead of asking for the original amount, he could have said sorry, and you people would still be bitching b/c looking back, maybe that would have been a solution. you want to blame him so bad for stumping your toe it isn't funny and you can't get past the idea that he is not solely responsibly for this.

can you guarantee with 100% accuracy that none of this would have happened had the funding remained the same? hell, they could have been clamoring for more money instead of asking for the original amount, he could have said sorry, and you people would still be bitching b/c looking back, maybe that would have been a solution. you want to blame him so bad for stumping your toe it isn't funny and you can't get past the idea that he is not solely responsibly for this.

And you can't accept that he might possibly have a bit of responsibility for this. You want to absolve him of responsibility for anything (but of course, give him tons of credit for anything he might possibly do right). Where's the personal responsibility? You're the one who can't even discuss the issue without attacking motives instead of the issue ("oh, well you just want to blame him for something").

No, nobody can guarantee that everything would have been fine, but it seems clear that it would have helped at least some. In my mind, it's a pretty huge mistake to cut funding for a project that, as we now know (and knew then as well), was extremely important.

the guy who managed the levee system said, "It would take $2.5 billion to build a Category 5 protection system, and we're talking about tens of billions in losses, all that lost productivity, and so many lost lives and injuries and personal trauma you'll never get over," Mr. Naomi said. "People will be scarred for life by this event."

i don't think it's proposterous to suggst that spending $2.5 billion to prevent against $20 billion in damage is a prudent course of action.

we live in a risky world, but here are ways to mitigate the risk of catastrophic damage. the threshold for undertaking preventative measures should not be 100% certainty that all damage will be prevented. that's ludicrous. we'd never do anything to protect ourselves. this is why risk management is important. we can rarely completely eliminate risk, but there are plenty of reasonable ways to minimize whatever risks are present; those are the things prudent people do.

Logged

PresClay_00

And you can't accept that he might possibly have a bit of responsibility for this. You want to absolve him of responsibility for anything (but of course, give him tons of credit for anything he might possibly do right). Where's the personal responsibility? You're the one who can't even discuss the issue without attacking motives instead of the issue ("oh, well you just want to blame him for something").

No, nobody can guarantee that everything would have been fine, but it seems clear that it would have helped at least some. In my mind, it's a pretty huge mistake to cut funding for a project that, as we now know (and knew then as well), was extremely important.

i've never said that cutting the funding was entirely faultless. however, i also didn't come on here and say that it's bush's fault for what's going on down there. (and might possibly do right?!?!?) the issue for this disucssion is your motive b/c like i said, i didn 'tsay that cutting the money was an entirely faultless move. however, i also realize that even with the funding, it might not have been enough and that's not something you're willing to consider.

Logged

PresClay_00

the guy who managed the levee system said, "It would take $2.5 billion to build a Category 5 protection system, and we're talking about tens of billions in losses, all that lost productivity, and so many lost lives and injuries and personal trauma you'll never get over," Mr. Naomi said. "People will be scarred for life by this event."

i don't think it's proposterous to suggst that spending $2.5 billion to prevent against $20 billion in damage is a prudent course of action.

we live in a risky world, but here are ways to mitigate the risk of catastrophic damage. the threshold for undertaking preventative measures should not be 100% certainty that all damage will be prevented. that's ludicrous. we'd never do anything to protect ourselves. this is why risk management is important. we can rarely completely eliminate risk, but there are plenty of reasonable ways to minimize whatever risks are present; those are the things prudent people do.

the 100% figure came from her wanting to lay the blame solely at bush's feet. she would probably have been pissed if one drop got through.

but pres, the part of the point is that if the money was allocated as requested, W could say he did pretty much all that was in his power to do to protect NO even if the levee still broke. i don't think any of us who are raising the issue could legitimately claim that W wasn't doing his job. but the problem is that the recommendations of FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers weren't heeded. and while W certainly had people who worked for him making these kinds of decisions, doesn't he as president ultimately bear the responsibility for the decisions made by the people he chooses to be in charge of the specifics?

PresClay_00

of course he does. i hold him responsile every time i hit a pothole in the road. don't you?

EDIT: and back to the idea of you people not being happy with what he does. Since the last time he listened to his advisors, whether they were acting on bad intelligence or not, y'all have wanted to crucify him. when does he ever do anything right in your eyes?